Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Powell County Planning Board debates public-comment timing and alleges possible subdivision evasion
Summary
During approval of minutes on Feb. 5, the Powell County Planning Board and members of the public disputed whether the Dec. 11 minutes accurately reflected events, with allegations that a boundary relocation may have been used to evade subdivision review and claims that a surveyor threatened legal action.
The Powell County Planning Board on Feb. 5 debated revisions to its Dec. 11 minutes after several residents and board members said the earlier minutes did not accurately reflect the timing and substance of public comment and the board's deliberations.
Public commenters — including David Mannix and Brian von Lossberg — said the original Dec. 11 minutes were more accurate and argued that the Board should have heard certain comments before a vote on a boundary relocation. Mannix told the board he believed the change from five lots to six, the presence of two half-acre lots that would be unbuildable without an easement, and the involvement of a developer indicated the proposal looked like an attempt to evade subdivision review. "I would like it to be on the record that there was a threat of legal action by the surveyor," Mannix said.
Gary Aitken urged board members to exercise independent judgment, saying, "You are never required to simply vote 'yes' or 'no.'" John Farrar cited the Montana Constitution and argued that denying comment before a vote risks running afoul of state open-meeting principles; County Attorney Ellen Donohue responded that the matter under discussion was not a public hearing but a non-public-hearing agenda item and clarified what that distinction means for procedure.
Board members debated whether to table the matter to solicit more information. Donohue advised that the Board decides when to table and that boundary-relocation requests often involve private landowner rights and are not typically processed as public hearings. Several members said they favored approving the Dec. 11 minutes with corrections to preserve an accurate record. Member Randy Mannix moved to approve the original Dec. 11 minutes with corrections addressing alleged subdivision-evasion criteria and voting timing; the motion carried 8-0.
The dispute touches on two recurring tensions in county land-use work: balancing landowner flexibility under county zoning with transparency and meaningful public input, and ensuring meeting notices and minutes reflect the sequence of events. Public commenters also raised concerns about the timing of legal notices in the Silver State Post and recommended ensuring two weeks' notice where feasible; staff said notices were posted on the county website and courthouse and that newspaper publication timing had been inconsistent.
The Board's final action at this agenda item was a motion to approve the Dec. 11 minutes with the changes specified by Member Mannix; the vote was unanimous. No formal legal action was recorded during the meeting to resolve the underlying dispute about the boundary-relocation application itself.
